8.
3.
For any firmer indication than that Mr Kindersley said that the consortium could use the FF 1972 report as a basis for price evaluation but to do this they would need access to the information data and assumptions on which that report was based; the report itself is not in any sense adequate enough for the exercise required. If the consortium could be given access to that information they would carry out an evaluation; since the consortium considered Government would want something more up to date than a price based on the FF 1972 report they would also suggest that a further price evaluation be made incorporating data which had become available since the FF report was compiled and other changes in concept and design which Government had decided. Mr Kindersley stressed that any pricing now given could not be a reliable indication of ultimate price because a number of very important reservations would have to be made. The consortium would try to get a fair and realistic assessment for Government. Mr Kindersley drew Government attention to the pricing policy which the consortium suggested be adopted which was as important as price itself; this policy had been explained in the consortium's presentations (particularly in the second Addendum which was handed over at the close of the meeting on 19 March) and orally in discussions with PWD officials.
10.
Mr Hadden-Cave said that a price based on the FF 1972 report would be satisfactory for Government at this stage. He presumed that in their presentation of price the consortium would make reservations and state the assumptions on which they had worked; he anticipated the consortium would draw a distinction between changes in orice that might arise through cost escalations, through unforeseen circumstances (particularly appropriate in the civil engineering field), through changes in the construction programme (which might affect the time taken), and through variations in design (arising from conscious decisions in this field). Government accent that if the assumptions on which consortium bases its price at this date later prove invalid then their price will necessarily change but would expect price to be within the quoted 'orice bracket' if the assumptions were not invalidated.
Discussion ensued on the availability of the information required by the consortium. Mr Robson considered the consortium request reasonable but Mr Wallwork stressed that providing and explaining information to the consortia would create disruption and possibly delay progress on FF current work. Mr Hadden-Cave accepted this as inevitable. It transpires that though all the post FF 1972 report basic technical data and copies of some of the pre report basic data are in Hong Kong most of the technical data underlying the report is held only in London. Government agreed that the consortium should have access to the data they needed to evaluate price. Mr Robson indicated that if a consortium approach were decided Government would need to know exactly what information the consortium would need so that Government and consultant activity could be concentrated on producing it.
11.
Mr Kindersley suggested that if all requisite information could be made available promptly in London on the consortiums return
a further meeting with Government should take place in Hong Kong during the week commencing 30 April at which the consortium's evaluations would be presented. Mr Hadden-Cave indicated agreement
to this suggestion.
3.